"rasqual" <scott.marquardt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:13usnbqigf6sa5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Curmudgeon" <gfuller1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "rasqual" <scott.marqua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
Snip
> It's a view held by at least some LdS -- including one of your
> brightest apologists. This has come up a few times in these parts,
> though discussion was squelched by an asymmetrical moderation policy
> with respect to theodicy (LdS theodices are topical, whereas orthodox
> ones are not -- even though orthodox theodicies can be an argument
> against LdS theodicies, which should make them topical).
LDS are free to hold any view they wish. They have a more limited freedom
to
teach it as "TRUTH" and try to persuade others. Sometimes the limitiation
is
very strong. They can be denied privileges of member****p, but no one can
deny them the freedom to believe what they believe. I have no idea who
"one
of (our) brightest apologists" may be, and on what basis you consider him
or
her to be bright, even one of our brightest other than that he or she may
say things that please you for whatever reason. That may be the most
common
basis on which we consider people to be bright or not, I guess. Or it may
not fit in your scheme of things.
Although one of my secondary math students who was taking a course called
"Business math" or some such but was in reality a second year of remedial
math trying to get him to learn what he should have learned in elementary
school once asked me, when I was insisting that my students use English
sentences to answer questions that had been asked with English Sentences,
"Why ain't you a English Teacher, Mr. Fuller", I amnot familiar with all
the
words and phrases with which some seem to mask the thoughts that color
their
understanding of God and His ways. One such is theodicy. I will give here
the one phrase definition I found on line at m-w.com, and ask if it is
close
enough to your meaning. ": defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in
view
of the existence of evil " If it is, then perhaps I can speak a bit to
that
idea of your preceding paragrah.
We indeed have an asymmetrical moderation policy here. Once in a while it
gets a post of mine bounced. But it also allows remarkable freedom to
those
who wish to criticize us and in so doing demonstrate a remarkable lack of
knowledge of us, and a remarkable assurance that they do not suffer such a
lack of understanding. This asymmetical poicy does cut down on the number
of
pointless arguments and insults that otherwise migh occur as they seem to
do
on some other "religion" news groups etc. For my part, I seen no need to
"defend" anything about God. He is. He is what He is. If He is good, very
well. If He is not good, there is little we can do about it. So why argue?
Are there reasons for the existence of evil? Reason tells me there must
be.
But maybe things exist without reason. Millinons of people have lived
(existed?) on this earth thinking that things indeed existed without
reason
or that the reasons were merely the whims of some beings. Most Christians,
including most Latter-day Saints, seem to reject that idea, as I do. But I
am sure I cannot explain everything. Nor can you, nor can any other mortal
now living. Hence, by the definition I found, a "theodicy" of any kind is
more than likely an exercise in futility. But oh, they make for
interesting
arguments, don't they? <G>
> I understand that you're darned neoMormon though, so I can appreciate
> that you'd find this shocking. It's an implication of more traditional
> LdS beliefs -- what you might call "folk Mormonism" (though well
> attested by your authorities and not repudiated by more recent
> authorities -- merely not held as often by LdS).
I wish you would give a few references to your assertions such as "well
attested by your authorities". Who said what and when and under what
cir***stances? I get lose track of what "critics" hold to what views for
themselves. Some are honestlhy critical of all "versions" of
"Christianity"
while some adhere strongly to some narrow teachings for themselves while
allowing that all "evangelicals" (or all of some other umbrella
>> I take it that you know how stupid this last paragraph sounds to us. It
>> even
>> tops the earlier ones. I did see your little icon.
>
> I was pretty much just lumping together what many LdS have represented
> as sound Mormon belief in this forum. I agree that it sounds pretty
> stupid all in one place.
> Folk like me will inherit the consolation prize of the terrestrial
> kingdom. That's almost guaranteed us because we're nice.
Don't give up so easily! But also don't take too confidently that being
nice
will get you much. We are told more about the Celestial Kingdom, I think,
because that is what God prepare us for in the pre-mortal life. It is what
He had in His plans for us. But in order to have the experiences to really
appreciate and enjoy that Kingdom, He allowed us to have our Agency. He
allowed us to choose what we would believe and not believe, what we would
do
and not do. Of course each choice we make either opens more choices for us
or closes the op****tunity for others, in both cases both for good and for
ill. He intends to give us sufficient knowledge, if we are willing to
receive it, that we can return to live with Him. That means the Celestial
Kingdom. He has not revealed much about the other kingdoms.But here is
what
we have in section 76 about the Telestial Kingdom. (Not the Terrestial
one)
81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of
the
lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of
the
moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the
testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last
resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished
his
work.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world,
but
of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who
are
appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering
spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.
89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial,
which surp***** all understanding;
90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.
Now a star when you are near it has a "glory" that far surp***** the
"glory"
of our moon, if we are thinking of brightness and size etc. But from our
local vantage point stars seem pretty insignificant.Sothat is the way I
understand this description. The Sun seems very bright and glorious. It is
the apparent source of all energy on the earth, hence of all life on the
earth. The moon, from our vantage point, is alsoarge and bright, but not
so
much as the sun. We can, after all, look at it with the ****d eye. The
stars
seem small, although some seem larger and brighter then others. Hence they
have less "glory" than the moon, and they vary in their "glory". So much
for
trying to explain what this revelation is attempting to have us learn.
But notice verse 82. We do not deny that you have received a ****tion of
the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. Notice I said "a ****tion". Is that enough for the
Terrestial Kingdom?
Verse 83, we do not claim that you deny that there is a Holy Spirit. We
might question whether you can have truly "received" that spirit. But that
is between you and God. We are sure you have not had hands laid upon your
head by one having the authority from God to confer the Holy Spirit, and
that you have not been told to "Receive the Holy Ghost". So we might
wonder,
as I said, if you have gone farther and followed that admonition to
"receive
the Holy Ghost". So what is verse 83 really saying to you?
I understand "hell" to mean little more than death and the grave so I have
no real comment on verse 84.
In verse 85 we come to the question about how many resurrections there are
etc. Those who are going to the Celestial Kingdom are promised to arise in
the First Resurrection, according to my understanding. These folks may
then
get to take part in officiating at the remainder of the work dealing with
this earth.
Just as if I was willing to settle for less than a mark of A in school, I
had to try for that A or I would get lower than I was willing to take, I
feel a need to try to do all that I believe my Father wants me to do lest
I
fall far short. It was even that way with my desire to do things that my
mortal parents and grandparents let me know that they desired of and for
me.
I simply cannot understand why anyone would set his sights lower than what
God (whether we believe He is our Father or not) wants of and for us. And
I
do not think you want to do that either. I think you and I simply do not
have the same understanding of what God placed us here for, and what He
wants of us or for us.
And clearly, but of little real im****tance, you want to think of me in
terms
of some kind of "Mormonism" and regardless of by belief that the Book of
Mormon is the Keystone of our Religion, and regardless of the fact that
our
General Authorities still accept the term "Mormon" as an identifier for us
to some degree, I do not even know what the term means.
|
